Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday February 04, 2012 @08:25PM
from the congratulations-bill dept.

Plugh writes "In a victory for transparency and openness in government, and saving tax dollars, New Hampshire has passed HB418. State agencies are now required by law to consider open source software when acquiring software, and to promote the use of open data formats."

I. For all software acquisitions, each state agency, in consultation with the department of information technology, shall:

(a) Consider whether proprietary or open source software offers the most cost effective software solution for the agency, based on consideration of all associated acquisition, support, maintenance, and training costs;

(b) Except as provided in subparagraphs (d) and (e), acquire software products primarily on a value-for-money basis, based on consideration of the cost factors as described in subparagraph (a);

(c) Provide a brief analysis of the purchase decision, including consideration of the cost factors in subparagraph (a), to the chief information officer;

(d) Avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage; and

(e) Avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification of a state agency’s computer.

II. All state procurement documents related to software acquisitions shall include language that requires adherence to this section.

(g) It is not in the public interest and it is a violation of the fundamental right to privacy for the state to use software that, in addition to its stated function, also transmits data to, or allows control and modification of its systems by, parties outside of the state’s control.

(d) Avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage

Try holding Microsoft's feet to the fire with that one please... they have an "open specification" but they don't follow it...

Starting with Microsoft Office 2007, the Office Open XML file formats have become the default[3] file format of Microsoft Office.[4][5] However, due to the changes introduced in the Office Open XML standard, Office 2007 is not entirely in compliance with ISO/IEC 29500:2008.[58][59][60][61] Microsoft Office 2010 includes support for the ISO/IEC 29500:2008 compliant version of Office Open XML,[59] but it can only save documents conforming to the transitional schemas of the specification, not the strict schemas.[6][62]

the above quote is from wikipedia

Plus it's got patents involved with it that aren't compatible with GPL

I know this is Slashdot and people will rush to post moronic questions just to get first post that would be easily answered if they would bother to read the links, and that will get modded up instantly by other morons . . . but the text of HB418 is actually quite specific. For example:

I. For all software acquisitions, each state agency, in consultation with the department of information technology, shall:

...

(d) Avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage; and

(e) Avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification of a state agency’s computer.

There's a lot of other stuff too, including stuff about open data formats.

Hard as I have tried, I just can't come up with a snarky comment about why this law is a bad idea. I'm sure there will be efforts made to do so below. However, the rest of us might take this opportunity to identify the trolls and shills by the quality, or lack, of their efforts.

I'll tell you one thing, there are some state legislators in New Hampshire who won't be finding fat checks from industry lobbyists in their xmas stockings this year. (Or maybe they w

I think that open source won long ago. The primary driving force behind closed source is Microsoft. And, Microsoft no longer has the world's population trying to force feed cash to Microsoft. Things are changing, Microsoft has less money to spend on bribes, and those stocking stuffers are more targeted now.

Eventually, the world will realize that it makes no sense to pay licensing fees for something that has a free equivalent.

The biggest obstacle to adoption of open source now, are all those kids of the '90's and '00's who grew up using Microsoft, believing that manipulating Microsoft's GUI made them "computer scientists". It's a slow process, but stupidity and ignorance can be healed.

ALEC is a clearing house of ideas... it's an repository for legislation they think is good. I'm proud that they have embraced legislation _I_ submitted here in (with the help of folks from Institute of Justice, the Kelo case folks) regarding asset forfeiture laws. NH's drafted law was a better model than previous drafts, so it was passed around, and now ALEC has adopted it... meaning that it will end up submitted in other states. That's not a bad thing.

Well I think its a fine idea IF and only if they are allowed to pick what they consider the best tool for the job that fits instead of having to take FOSS even where the FOSS solution doesn't work. For example if you were forced to take a completely FOSS replacement for the integration of WinDesktop plus AD, GPOs, Exchange, and Sharepoint what you'd get is a big fucking mess of software that was frankly never designed to work together and written by different teams with different goals. That is because nobody has spent the money to develop a complete top to bottom solution like the above using only FOSS so what is out there is pretty much DIY, or at least it was when i looked at it last in 09. There are other cases where NOT using the FOSS solution would be stupid, for example webservers. Significant money has been spent developing FOSS for this role and its solid, well maintained, and robust. There is a good reason why Apache runs the web and that's because its solid and well maintained.

So as long as they are allowed to use the best tool for each job and not forced to pick one OR the other simply by philosopy I think its a smart idea. Now watch all the hatred i get for daring to say that FOSS isn't the answer to everything and every job, but the simple fact is sometimes it works, sometimes it don't. For a final example I would never recommend Linux for SMB desktops simply because getting QuickBooks running with full functionality on Linux is damned near impossible and SMBs live and die by QB and there simply isn't a FOSS equivalent to the depth of QB when it comes to SMB management. Conversely I wouldn't think of using anything BUT FOSS in the embedded space, the FOSS dev boards like Arduino are well known, have plenty of add ons, and most of the code is already written and free to use, its a no brainer. But I always try to use the best tool for the job instead of treating code as a religion so what do I know.

I'd think that the goal behind this move would have been to avoid being too dependent on any single company for solutions, given that if that company folds, they'd have to re-invest in another solution again. Think of companies who were using VMS at one time, and had to leave once DEC and Alpha went away. I'm sure that at that time, the idea of DEC not existing would have been far fetched, just like the idea of Microsoft or Quicken not existing is inconceivable to people today.

"Set up seems like a bit of a pain"...You lose. And you are actually calling having LaTeX, one of the most nerdy NON FRIENDLY things in the fricking history of software, you think having that is a GOOD thing? Jesus Tap dancing Christ, no wonder FOSS guys don't get it! QB is so hand holding simple the majority of the QB girls (and they ALWAYS seem to be girls, its almost like they have a union or something) can make that thing dance with just a couple of mouse clicks and filling in the blank. LaTeX, at least

We run a mixed shop with some employees using OO/LO and others using actual Office. The docs prepared in Office get suitably and consistently mangled in OO; to the point of unusability (e.g. bulleted lists dissapearing, tables vanishing, etc.).

I had to update my resume (word 97/2003 format or whatever the "standard" is).

The weird thing is OpenOffice opened "more correctly" than Libre did. While the font was off, the breaks between pages were all correct along with the rest of the formatting. Libre had it all messed up.

Actually, I was concerned about that incident greatly, which is why this attempts a different sort of approach... The Open Government Data principles don't attempt to enforce A standard, just standards that fit the principles. You can be closed source and meet the principles.... it's just much harder to do so, as open source tends to work toward those same princples, and closed source doesn't always.

Your document is a good example of the problems proprietary formats can cause.

The reason your document's form fields do not work in Word is not because of issues with LibreOffice, it's a compatibility issue between Word's binary format (W95-2000.doc) and the newer.docx format. You would have the same problem using different versions of Word.

The check boxes used in your form have been deprecated in Word 2007's.docx, and are only accessible under the Developer tab of the Ribbon interface. To get it to work the way you expect, you'll need to save it as a.doc from LibreOffice, which will force Office 2007 to switch to the legacy mode.

There have been plenty of posts pointing to Microsoft Office' inability to open, or to save, older Microsoft Office documents. I don't even use Microsoft Office, so I've just read those posts for amusement.

With that statement, any choice can be made. It is impossible to legislate what people "should" do, particularly when dealing with large bureaucracies.

While true, this requires the minions to say so in writing, with their names attached. Which provides the demi-minions above them with grounds for low performance ratings, and so on up to the top of the heap. Where a challenger for some elected position could accuse the incumbent of failing to control costs, etc, using all these brief reports as concrete ammunition.

I have been employed by an agency of the Federal government, never for any State governments, but I believe when it comes to the hired staff they all work the same way. If you make the civil servants have to state their reasons for decisions in any kind of written report, suddenly those decisions become a lot more rational. They don't know who their boss will be after the next election, and if they want to advance, they've got to be good at covering their asses.

Looks to me like NH has found a way to make the CYA attitudes of its Sybil serpents work for the benefit of the populace. Way to go, Granite State!

The source itself is the documentation. It may not be as clear as purpose written documentation in some cases, but it is necessarily 100% accurate and can often be linked into other software for instant compatibility.

On the other side, some purpose written documentation manages to be so unenlightening and impenetrable that reverse engineering proves to be less effort.

In an ideal world there's no difference between what a software does and what it's supposed to do. But in the real world any non-trivial software will be imperfect.

Developers shouldn't be in a situation where they rely on unintended quirks in external code or file formats. You don't want someone else's bugfix to become your bug; that's why "real" documentation is so important. Looking at the code doesn't cut it.

On the other hand, if you implement to the documentation, you will fail to inter-operate with the actual software. It won't matter that you're technically correct, it will be considered your failure and your software will be useless.

If you implement to the actual software, you may get bitten in the ass later, but it'll be fixable by looking at the diff and for the most part you'll be inter-operable.

The source can be read and by reading it, you may know what the program does. Unlike the source, you can never be certain that you have seen every behavior that the program might have. The source is *intended* to be instructive. While it's target audience is a compiler, that in itself puts it above observation of behavior.

By no means is the source the best possible documentation (though it will always make a fine adjunct to any documentation) but it also isn't the worst.

As long as that documentation is well written, yes. Documentation comes in a broad continuum of accuracy and readability. The source will not be the BEST documentation that has ever been written, but it won't be the WORST either. It will certainly be better than nothing. Some purpose written documentation is actually worse than nothing.

Actually that is part of the definition for "Open standards". So it's referring not to internal storage, but to "encoding and transfer of computer data". I think it's pretty reasonable to require that a standard be documented.

I'll answer any questions people have about the bill... post comments below.

This will be the FIRST Open Source and Open Data bill in any of the 50 states.

I'm very happy... And yes, I'm a geek. I've got a slashdot UID of 5 digits, have contributed to the Linux kernel and other project, tech edited a book on Drupal, and been doing techy things for over 25 years now...

I've got a slashdot UID of 5 digits, have contributed to the Linux kernel and other project, tech edited a book on Drupal, and been doing techy things for over 25 years now...

But have you ever (and I'm quite serious about this) worked on a government project where acquisitions are made, to understand the kind of "We'll get what we want, it's just a matter of the right amount of paperwork" shenanigans that go on? And as such, do you honestly think the CIO of any agency will actually care?

I'm also curious -- the legislation that others quoted doesn't make any mention of the size of the acquisition. Does this mean that every credit card purchase of software will require such justification to be sent to the CIO? And if so, do you honestly expect anything other than copy and paste boilerplate explanations that will be so numerous and repetitive as to be essentially meaningless?

Perhaps those issues are addressed, but to be honest, it seems like one of those "sounds like a great idea" measures that will increase the amount of paperwork that people have to get their jobs done, and at best will only provide some technical person a little bit of fodder to demonstrate to management that his suggestion to use some sort of free software to accomplish the task isn't completely off the mark.

The CIO of NH (ie the Commission of NH DOIT) supported this legislation, because it will enable them to track and review purchases for EXACTLY that sort of reason. And in State Government, nothing is ever 'credit card purchase' of software, or shouldn't be.

So I'll reverse the question to you: Have you ever worked at State Government?

He claims to be a member of the NH congress. That's not the same view of government a middle level government employee would have, but it is part of the government, yes.

There is a Seth Cohn listed on the Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] for the New Hampshire House of Representatives. I'm assuming this is the same guy (otherwise it'd be pretty bizarre). In another post he said he was Libertarian, although Wikipedia lists him as a Republican.

He doesn't have his own Wikipedia page, but you can google for him as easy as I can

Perhaps those issues are addressed, but to be honest, it seems like one of those "sounds like a great idea" measures that will increase the amount of paperwork that people have to get their jobs done,

There does seem to be one potential advantage. If they go with open source, they don't have to fill out the paperwork, right? Seems like they shouldn't have to, anyway, since there's no point. If that's the case, call it a benefit that plays the lazy nature of your usual bureaucrat against themselves. You

Agreed, the arrogance is thick in government bureaucracies. EVERYTHING is political, nothing is done on merit or because it is the most efficient. It is really tiring to watch this day-in and day-out when you come from the business world or a non-profit where you had to make choices based solely on efficiency or merit. Having worked in one of these government environments I can safely say that any lifer (employee of ten years or more) is sucking down tax payer money, floating jobs to their friends, and trading favors on a constant basis. This reality is also openly talked about as these people feel immune from accountability.

I was in Wisconsin last year, for a 10th anniversary party celebrating Neil Gaiman's American Gods novel, at House on the Rock. Neil was dressed as Doctor Who (4th Doctor), I was dressed as a Neil Gaiman audio book. Fun times were had by all.

Reading quickly through the bill, seems pretty good; hope it works out. If nothing else I think it's a good start. I particularly liked the open data stuff; anyone who's had to deal with files through different versions of various word-manglers and such, or changing storage media, should appreciate it.

In the bill it provides a cost estimate. With a net positive effect, including this line, "The Department also estimates, based on a review of the FY 2012 and FY 2013 budget, state expenditures could decrease by approximately $300,000 in FY 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter through the implementation of open source software. "

There is a breakdown of the estimate for the cost part, broken down into possible new employees/time. Is there any breakdown of the estimated $300,000 in savings?

That net positive was the result of political work. This was originally 2 bills, one Open Source, one Open Data... Both bills had high price tags on them, and it was clear both were fairly bogus numbers (IMHO).I removed language that caused some of the estimates, and got them to agree that the positions needed for one could be met by the 3 positions in the other bill, and that cost savings of $300k were a bare minimum. (Originally, due to 'Consider', not a requirement, the cost saving was $0, plus 10 peop

So really, I've spent about 7 years or so learning how to get stuff like this done.

Pay attention to Seth here, folks. I was with him at the State House in 2006 when we tried and failed, and I testified for his bill as an open source entrepreneur this time around when we won.

Others have tried and failed to get something like this through. At least in the US, this is a prime and major success. You guys should be taking notes and seeking to replicate his success in your local jurisdictions.

Actually, most lobbyists remain in the shadows. But you can smell them. NH has them, but it's far cleaner than most places. Lots of Reps (400), and we only pay $100 a year for Reps and Senators (24 of them), and we elect everyone every 2 years.

The best line of the entire fight was the one lobbyist in a subcommittee meeting who said "I think we can replace the entire bill with one line" as a way to try and kill the bill.

About 8 years ago, my employer adopted a policy which favored open standards and open source software. Today the site license for Microsoft products like Office and Exchange continues to rule as one administrator's secretary adopts a new version of Office and proceeds to distribute data in the new default format which is incompatible with previous versions so everyone upgrades because its easier than learning that Open/Libre Office can handle.docx and.xlsx files or using a Save As to ensure backward compatibility. Acess remains a problem as the stand-alone "database" file continues as the default.

The increasing number of Mac and *nix users learn to deal with the new file format but the new version virus always spreads because no one will enforce the policy and damn few people understand that there are alternatives.

Considering that I'm a libertarian (and member of the Free State Project, so not just a iffy libertarian, but one who packed up and moved his life to New Hampshire, and eventually ran for office, won, and got this legislation passed...), this is FAR from Nanny-State.

Government needs to be accountable on how taxpayer money is spent. Individuals can buy whatever they like, but I want the system to buy only the best choice for the least money, and if open source is considered, it'll often win. Not always, but more than it does now. (NH does use some open source now... FYI, including Apache webservers, for example, for some things)

I've been (currently 'iffy', passively-)interested in the free state project, and NH in particular. So if I'm reading what you said properly, that you're one of the officials who voted for this legislation, maybe you can tell me:

Are we talking empty-headed randroid anarco-capitialist type "libertarians," or the sane "don't mess with people who aren't messing with you" brand?

That's a little worrisome, I have to admit, depending on the distribution.:) I'm not sure a Meet-n-greet will answer most of the questions, like the FSP web site, it seems mostly to read like a travel brochure with a lot of "liberty" talk sprinkled liberally (No pun intended) throughout the text. No offense to them, but after the past 16 years, you'll have to pardon my wariness. Still, I suppose a bit of poking around isn't out of the question. And, I will admit, an elected official with a 5-digit slashdot

Well, I helped build the current (and previous) version of the FSP website (It's running Drupal), and it's Meant to read like a travel brochure: come visit!

The 2 events are merely good times to meet lots of folks, here and from elsewhere, listen to speakers, hang out, and just see what happens.

But really visiting most anytime, you'll be able to meet lots of people. Coordinate a visit using the Facebook group or website forum (both is good, and often other related sites will help too), and pretty much any t

I know New Hampshire takes the whole "Live Free or Die" motto very seriously and I think that's awesome. I have three questions for you, little nagging things that are sort of holding me back on advising friends who are considering leaving New Jersey (the polar opposite of NH) for anywhere else to go to NH.

1) What's your Internet infrastructure like down there? Any plans to get a municipal system going, or something akin to power/telephone where the lines are public and the

In addition, to the links from the parent post, there is a pretty good documentary about the FSP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEPLUQNwU6w [youtube.com]
Not really a cross section of all/most Free State Project participants but worth a watch. I am not an FSP participant, but I am glad they are here.....Even Seth;)

I think a state government is well within its rights to dictate how best to save and spend its money. If a person works for a state government he or she is agreeing to work within the confines dictated by government policy. Similarly, a corporate IT department dictates what can and cannot be run on its network. Are you suggesting that an employee should be free to make those decisions without regard to what corporate or government policy dictates?

How about we just get rid of government and let everyone decide what to do with their own goddamn money.

Because most of us like having things like sewage systems, streets, and someone to get the drunk drivers off the roads. Of course, with no roads, I guess the drunk drivers wouldn't be a problem.

And if you think people would band together to pay for basic infrastructure without any government-style coordination, you're out of your mind.

Open source is great. I use it for all kinds of things, but I don't have much faith that government can make it work to anyone's benefit.

Why not? They make proprietary software work for people's benefit. What's so different about open source software?

Let people keep their earnings and decide what solutions are best for themselves.

Most people would be more concerned about basic security than software solutions if you were to remove the government.

Otherwise, you might as well just have them at least support real business that actually employs someone.

Government is real business. Seriously. They provide services for their customers in exchange for money. Sure, the people who receive services and the people who pay aren't necessarily the same people (i.e. I pay road tax, but my street hasn't been repaved since it was built in the 1930s, since apparently no one knows how to rebrick a #*$%ing street anymore), but the concept is the same. You even get to vote for the officers, which is more than an shareholder does.

The government employs people, just like a business. It pays those people in real, actual money - which is more than many business do, what with stock options and whatnot. Government can't run without government employees. Those employees are regular people, just like you and me. I've met quite a few very competent sysadmins who were GS rated government employees.

Get rid of the government, and you'll find yourself needing to solve a lot of problems. Every solution to those problems will evolve into government. It's the way of the world. Don't like it? Build a shack in the middle of Idaho and live off the land.

You seem to be under the impression that if the government stops providing some services then those services won't be provided by other institutions. This is certainly _not_ true for all government activity.

Some services, yes. Not all. I'm well aware there are portions of the government that could be privatized successfully.

You seem to be under the impression that other institutions would provide all useful services provided by the government. That's certainly not true as well.

The idea that streets would not be built if it were not by the government is ridiculous.

Your street maybe. I'm probably the second wealthiest person on my street, only after a guy who inherited his mother's slumlord properties. I bring in around $2k/month. My street would be a loss.

Street maintenance could certainly be privatized, but someone has to hire and pay the company to do it, and someone has to make sure the poorer areas are maintained. Only a government is capable of this.

I'm not a hardcore socialist. I don't believe the government should own and control industry, outside of necessary regulatory duties (i.e. keep lead paint out of our food, make sure 1lb is really 1lb, etc.). I do believe the government is required to act in places where capitalism fails. Basic public infrastructure is one of those places.

The key difference between a government and a regular business is that a government extracts payment under the threat of violence, or in some cases, by using actual violence.

Companies would do the same if they were not prevented from doing so (by - you guessed it - the government). The government is a company who has a monopoly on violence against the populace.

I once lived somewhere where the electric and gas services were provided by a private company. If I didn't pay, I was under the threat of freezing to death in the winter. I don't see much difference.

Also, a share holder in a public company can trade his shares if he does not like how the company is run.

And you can squat in a shack in Idaho. Or you can move to somewhere where there is no government, like Somalia. Have fun with that.

Sorry to hear that. But what you are saying is that, given your limited resources, you'd prefer to spend money in things other than improving the quality of your street. That is totally reasonable.

My street doesn't get improved (it was a WPA project from the 1930s - the city won't rebrick it for some reason, and they can't pave over the bricks because the historical society won't let them), but that's besides the point. If I were to go out and rebrick the part of the street I own, it wouldn't do any good for the part of street in front of the vacant lot two houses down, or the part in front of the old woman down the street who gets $300/month on social security.

The city, on the streets that it actually does improve, improves streets all at once, to the same quality, with the same materials. And no, there's no way the people on my street would come together on this. The old woman can't pay, the drug dealer across the street wouldn't be interested, the drunk dude on the corner would just want to start a fight, etc.

Poorer areas don't have to be maintained. It would be nice if they were, but people might want to user their money for other things.

Thus increasing the class disparity in this country. Think about the consequences of that kind of thinking for a while. Look at countries where it prevails.

Places like India, where some people make good money and live in nice houses, while other people literally live in dumps, recycling garbage to buy enough rice to stay alive. Places like Nigeria, where the population lives in squalor, except for the people making money hand over fist in the oil trade.

A large class disparity makes for a dissatisfied, bitter populace. That breeds security problems. I don't know about you, but I like not living behind a barbed wire fence.

If you regard the company as violent for cutting your services, you'd have to regard your neighbors/friends/family/coworkers in the same way for not helping you pay the bill. Why are the gas company owners any more responsible for your wellbeing than your neighbor or your friend?

I never said I regarded the company as violent, or that the company was somehow responsible for my well-being. I was pointing out that I would suffer potentially fatal consequences if I failed to pay my bill. Not paying taxes is actually safer - the most they'll do is garnish my wages or put me in jail.

I don't think I'd like Somalia at all...

Somalia is what happens when you have an ineffectual government. People are people - regardless of religion, culture, whatever - we as a group are greedy bastards who look after ourselves and those we care about first. We don't organize well, and when we do, it's usually as a special interest group or a mob.

To keep a people calm and peaceful, they have to be satisfied with their situation (or at least satisfied enough that they won't risk losing what they have). First, you need security - you have to feel safe in your home and about on your business. The government provides that. Next you need a standard of living that isn't disgraceful. Most people here have that - including most poor people. That's provided either by the government or by the economic system it supports. Next you need the people to feel they have some control over their lives. We have democracy and the government prevents most monopolies from forcing themselves on the populace.

When you don't have these things, the people don't stay peaceful. Where do gangs form in this country? Places where the standard of living is the lowest and security is lax.

This is out of order, but it shouldn't hurt the context:

The government is a company who has a monopoly on violence against the populace.

Agreed. I believe this is the primary function of government, although I'd call it an enterprise instead of a company.

I believe the primary function of government is to fill in the spaces where capit

While I believe in a smaller government and "letting everyone decide what to do with their own goddamn money," the 'big red button to end government' doesn't exist. So what to do NOW?

I moved to NH, and work for smaller and more transparent government. I'm an elected State Representative, and bring my principles to the State House, and get stuff like this bill done. And I get paid $100 a year for doing so. Yes, $100 a year. Not $100k, $100 dollars in total.

The idea is that they actually have to consider open source software. I imagine they think it'll be cheaper overall than purchasing proprietary software.

Think things like "Don't use Oracle to store a database with 2000 entries when MySQL will do the job just as well for cheaper." They can use Oracle if it's actually needed, but they have to give their reasons why.

I suspect it's actually more about the open document formats than anything else. Governments retain documents for a long time. How will you re

So, if you're NH IT, pre-law, you do due diligence when selecting software

Talk about wild ass assumptions. In the real world, due diligence is only done when there is no way to avoid its costs. If Microsoft Office has been in use by all the Department of Motor Vehicle clerks since 1997, then prior to this law there has been no need to consider doing anything but buying into its next upgrade. Even if that means replacing all the desktop computers with new models that can handle the new software.

This law requires some people to actually start thinking instead of coasting on other

It doesn't REQUIRE them to use Open Source over other solutions, but to consider it, using cost benefits answers. And all of your objections are moot then, since this bill essentially DOES what you want it to do: "government adopting Common Open Data formats and selecting the software based on performance makes more sense." (performance and price = total cost benefit analysis, right?)

So say, for example, LibreOffice gets chosen over MS Office, 10 years pass and the LibreOffice project dies/forks (as has happened with so many OSS projects) and MS no longer exists (this is a fantasy, after all). Now we have a government using a possibly orphaned, obscure, 'open', word processing tool.

Of course the point is that if you use Microsoft Office and Microsoft goes bankrupt, then you're left with your documents in a closed, proprietary format (and even Microsoft's "open", "standard" format is p

Isn't this one of the standard arguments made in 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar?'? If a project dies, its source code is still with the people who got the software, and they are free to continue working on it and custom develop it to suit their requirements. Yeah, the code would be orphaned, but the government could either get in-house programmers who could read that source code as well as the documentation, and work on any required improvements or bug fixes. And not just that - let's say a new computer

1. Seth Cohn [slashdot.org] is a prime sponsor of the bill, and a fairly hardcore slashdotter. J'raxis [slashdot.org] is, like myself, an emeritus Director of Research for the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance... and a fairly hardcore slashdotter. Q: What happens when the geeks rule? A: New Hampshire, baby!

2. I learned about the Free State Project right here on slashdot, back in 2003. How cool is that?

3. This is for real. This is not just web slacktivism. This is people taking back control of the government. AND IT'S HAPPENING. If you have a vaguely libertarian bone in your body, you really do owe it to yourself to see what's going on in New Hampshire. I'd strongly recommend coming to the NH Liberty Forum [freestateproject.org]. People come every year, and after the experience, go back to their home states. Just long enough... to pack! [youtube.com]